Assessment of EoI: 358

Organization: Cooperativa AMBIO



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 358 in Mesoamerica - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: The proposal will be made in Mexico and Colombia. Mexico passages are strategic for biodiversity and carbon reservoirs, have a wildland biological corridor the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve. Colombia is the third South American country with the largest area of ​​natural forests

Evidence B:NA


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: Territories for the implementation of the proposal are extensive and mega-diverse with different types of forests and vegetation. This high variety of ecosystems facilitated accumulation carbon

Evidence B:NA


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: In Mexico 20% of the ejidos and agrarian communities consist of Indigenous Peoples. In these territories there are different governance arrangements, community forestry. They have an Assembly that must be renewed every three years. In Colombia, people in the black community councils have drawn up management plans for the territory based on ancestral knowledge of land management work. These plans include forest management, biodiversity and other resources

Evidence B:NA


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: In Mexico most of the farmland, forests, jungles, are in communal lands. It is estimated that about 20% of the ejidos and agrarian communities are composed of persons belonging to Indigenous Peoples and the remaining 80% could be considered as local communities. There are various types of governance in each of these territories that incorporate ancestral knowledge and ensure the common welfare and harmony of nature. Ethnic groups are holders of territories where the 53.4% ​​of natural forests, finding 46.1% in shelters Indigenous and 7.3% in collective territories of black or Afro-descendant communities. In 1995 the black people achieved the recognition of their rights to collective ownership of ancestral lands traditionally occupied and constructed.

Evidence B:NA


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: In Mexico there are the following threats: the degradation and loss of natural resources, change in use of the land, illegal logging, illegal use of resources, forest fires, recirsos scarce economic, thou shalt bind with weak goberbanza, climate change, insecurity and organized crime, megaprpyectos without prior consultation. In Colombia: Illegal mining, illegal logging, port and road projects without consultation and without FPIC, monoculture of coca leaf, sugar cane, palm oil, livestock intensive, the presence of armed groups, etc.

Evidence B:NA


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: The Community Forest Management model developed by PICLs for 40 years has supported the conservation of biodiversity, resources and agro-biodiversity. Compensation for environmental services water or carbon is important. The black people of Colombia has set up conservation areas in its territory

Evidence B:NA


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Mexico has signed commitments with the ODS, the Framework on Climate Change and the CBD among others. In Colombia organizations and community councils of black communities are part of the Pacific Regional Pact against degradation, deforestation and loss of biodiversity.

Evidence B:NA


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: Mexico is party to several international commitments concerning biodiversity, climate change and sustainable development objectives. Through political lobbying have been achieved including a strong component of rights in favor of PICLs in forest law, inspired by the safeguards Cancun (COP 16 - UNFCCC). Between 2018-2024 food production in rural areas using native seeds will be promoted. Black people in Colombia is part of the Pacific Regional Pact for Climate Change, Biodiversity and good living

Evidence B:NA


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: They have field projects financed by the Forest Service of the United States, the Norwegian Fund, Ministry of Environment and Rights and Resources Initiative that could contribute in the implementation of the proposal and the co-financing. They have funding short and medium term and the contributions of the three organizations involved in the proposal and other future partners

Evidence B:NA



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 30/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 25/30

Average Total Score: 27.5/30



Performance of EoI 358 in Mesoamerica - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Objectives, activities and results are exceptionally aligned with the objectives of ICI. Empowerment is achieved, better quality of life and good living of PI and black communities, and the preservation of ancestral territories that have great importance for humanity and international processes related to biodiversity and climate change effects

Evidence B:NA


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: The overall objective is to improve and maintain the environmental benefits of forests and forests of high biodiversity PICLs two geographic regions, through strengthening their governance, local knowledge and management of the territory. In order to achieve this objective propose four results with main activities that will help improve local capacities in management and administration, links with the private sector, market research at various levels and maintain the environmental benefits of terrestrial ecosystems (forests and jungles ) and ensure fair and equitable sharing of these benefits

Evidence B:NA


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: The way work is planned to help effectively combat and realistic threats. , Recovery of local governance models Community trade trainings, consultations, tools will be great support for the proposal of the two regions

Evidence B:NA


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Coherent activities will lead to positive results. The applicant organization ensures the development of the proposal with the allocated budget and time of 5 years.

Evidence B:NA


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: Mentioned several activities related to the issues of climate change and biodiversity, communication, strengthening community organizations, PICLs participation. etc. Activities in Mexico and Colombia with a variety of local funding sources, national and internacional.ccc

Evidence B:NA


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: In view of the basic indicators of the GEF’s proposal would work in an area of ​​over 500,000 hectares

Evidence B:NA


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: The proposal if you have additional indicators for each of the results.

Evidence B:NA


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Some of the results of the proposal aimed at strengthening capacities for sustainability and continuity of the proposal to the term of financing by strengthening linkages with other organizations and governmental and non-governmental institutions.

Evidence B:NA


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: Mexico has the Strategy and the National Biodiversity Plan. Both the Plan and the strategy has 6 strategic axes of these impacts this proposal 5 of them: Eje1,2,3,4 and 6. The INDC of Mexico has two components, one other mitigation and adaptation to change climate. This proposal will pay mitigation component. Colombia has its Biodiversity Action Plan 2016-2030 which is in line with the Strategic Plan of the CBD par 2011-2020 and Aichi.

Evidence B:NA


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: Ambio has developed a methodology for raising both its staff and the PICLs in order to achieve inclusion and participation of women and youth in a natural and harmonious in the technical, administrative and field field

Evidence B:NA


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 5/5

Evidence A: Proposing the organization and its partners have experience in project development on conservation, biodiversity and climate change. They have potential partners to ensure future funding. The proposal is part of the objectives of the ICI. Ensures the implementation of the proposal in time five years with a budget of $ 2 million

Evidence B:NA



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 38/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 34/40

Average Total Score: 36/40



Performance of EoI 358 in Mesoamerica - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: The proposal is available in two geographic regions: Mexico and Colombia, work with PI and CL are settled in their ancestral territories. In Mexico the Assembly of Members is responsible for monitoring and ensuring the proper functioning and development of the Organization; The legal representative represents and executes operations and legal activities that the administrative and accounting activities are based on Mexican law, and also oversees. Ambio has 20 years of work in four lines of action and since 2017 a member of IUCN has two general areas: the technical area and the administrative area. It has a Policies and Procedures Manual, an extensive resume in the mission, vision and action lines, etc.

Evidence B:NA


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: AMBIO has a solid structure and has important partners for their projects. In his references he mentioned projects in several months with funding from abroad. It has one or more projects led by PICLs from local field offices

Evidence B:NA


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 5/5

Evidence A: AMBIO has strong partners PI and CL and other institutions from various regions. Each partner has a defined role.

Evidence B:NA


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 5/5

Evidence A: AMBIO mentioned structure in its technical and management team, each person has the technical training necessary skills and living conditions required to work with PICLs. As part of a GEF project component it included work with women. It has projects with funding from abroad with amounts varying from US $ 88,000.00 to 1’009,174.00 USD

Evidence B:NA


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: The annual average of AMBIO is 339,825.0 UDS. Funding for the organization comes from five sources at the least, with none of them exceed 40%. The organization has an internal monthly system resource management, each project has a bank account, this information is systematized in reports that are delivered to donors, they can be quarterly, semi-annual, annual, as agreed with the donor. The Board reviews the quarterly balances. The external audit apply to projects through an agreement with the donor and the cost of it is part of the total cost of the proposal

Evidence B:NA


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: AMBIO implement of 2015 to 2019 a GEF initiative, which was completed so successful technically and financially in March this year. All financial and technical responsibility was in charge of the institution. In addition to this experience he has handled funds from the British Space Agency through a consortium initiative in 7 countries, including Mexico. USAID also funds, through various national and international bodies.

Evidence B:NA



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 30/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 30/30

Average Total Score: 30/30



Performance of EoI 358 in Mesoamerica - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)